80 replies to this topic

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

Also while So Bandito is a good player I don't think even he would call himself comp tier. Quicksilver is about the only comp player who comes to this forum to swim in the Brown Sea.

Why, because you think he's the authority? Because you're the authority who should we take as the authority.

If you could take QK as the authority, I will take EB as the authority. Since we're being stupid like that.

Also i'm online right now.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 03:32 PM, said:

A couple of the best NS players too. The rest mostly stick to Reddit - bluntly because of threads like this. Someone with a 50 win/loss on their stats (yes, 50, as in 50.0, as in 50 out of 51 matches won) says "hey this is what works and how and why" and someone who wins less than 50% of their matches argues with them based on anecdotal experience or flawed/incomplete math, they have largely buggered off. Reddit mostly.

Oh wow okay so since we're appealing to stats. Why don't we get War_Glaivez? Don't kid me, they can just pad their stats by smurfing. They could also only play one weapon, and neglect another, like some one-trick pony.

Anecdotal evidence? As if your words and the words of these "experts" aren't also just anecdotal evidence. I mean honestly it's one thing to cite a specific person, and then another thing to just cite ambiguous sources with "50 w/l". This is the internet, anyone can say anything. I could say my father is Bojack Horseman and i have a horsehead for a head like just my old man. Also a comp player that's named "doesnotreallyexist" said that RAC5 is better than ERLL for sniping at +750m, and we can trust him because he has 9001 W/L.

The difference is that, i've got math, i've shown my solution, and if you really think my math is wrong, hows about do the math for once and prove it? That's the best part, it's falsifiable.

So far all you've been doing ever since ATM is just say "X" says "Y", therefore it's objectively "Y". You're just sheep. If you're just going to parrot these experts, hows about save us all the bother of your irrelevance and invite them to the thread?

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2017 - 03:58 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

If you could take QK as the authority, I will take EB as the authority. Since we're being stupid like that.

could be stupider. you could make me the authority.

im the new sheriff in these here parts

[MischiefSC]

Actually I was referencing Quicksilvers stats. So you want to go by the math? UAC5 does 2x5 PPFLD within 0.5 seconds of wanting to shoot the enemy. It starts 10 pts ahead with better accuracy. By the time the RAC has inaccurately done 10 pts over a target the UAC5 has put out 20-25 pts of damage with better accuracy. The ability to shoot and twist without loss of DPS. With I individual PPFLD it's much easier to keep shots on target on the move.

For much of the same reason that the IS ERLL was better than the Clan ERLL due to shorter burn time (even with inferior damage/tic) prior to the recent changes RACs, with charge up and stare down design is going to lose out vs the UAC5. Have already tested it tons. Have discussed testing with other people. Happy to test it with you. Could probably even help get a 4 v 4 RAC vs UAC match going.

What the math shows is why the RAC is bad. The DPS gain is minimal and lags 1 second behind the UAC. 1 second is a lifetime when you're talking trades. For the 1 ton, 1 slot increase (also a big deal) and the heat increase (also big) you get a small DPS advantage that delayed 1 second and only lasts a few seconds.

Eliminate the spin-up, either increase the DPS a bit or extend the jam bar a bit. The accuracy loss is really just a range limitation because ACCURATE range = useful range. It's why the great range on LBX is irrelevant, but does matyer for AC/USC (and why ballistic drop hurt AC10/20).

The UAC will always out trade the RAC and even at mid range the slight decrease in DPS is bridged by the significant gain in accuracy and useful range.

Which is what has been said repeatedly. I'll post Urbie builds and skill trees later when I'm home and we can come to an agreement on that and test it to prove the point if you want. However it's already been tested. Repeatedly.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 04:39 PM, said:

could be stupider. you could make me the authority.

im the new sheriff in these here parts

Not without sirens you're not.

[TheMisled]

100% jam on bar fill up is an awful idea and will just end up gimping these weapons. I don't know what people are doing with them to warrant them being called 'useless' or 'underpowered'. So far having used these things and several different mechs ranging from lights to assualts, I have had a lot of success. You can show all the stats that you want to but it should be stated (as has been done so before many time in past), statsdo not equate to in-game performance of a weapon. The RACs are plenty accurate enough within their optimum range (I've noticed little discernible spread when shooting) and the fact that the damage is done over a period of time helps counter-act their huge DPS.

Cool down is often something brought up when talking about DPS but from experience again, most of the time that I leave an RAC on cool down is when either me or the enemy has backed into cover in which case I couldn't do any damage to the opposing mech whether I have an RAC or not. The RAC also has a lot more dependable DPS than UACs with a little to no (not sure on exact values) chance of jamming for the first few seconds however after those first few seconds the chance of jamming increases dramatically making them a high risk vs reward weapon. The fact that they jam is also an important balancing point as they don't let you fire a continuous stream of any single weapon so why would they let you do it for the most potent DPS weapon in the game.

All in all these weapons are a high risk vs reward weapon where the risk of high face time is paid off with monstrous damage dealt to which ever mech is unfortunate enough to be standing on the other end of your barrel(s). When you also take into account the suppressive value of these weapons, they are not underpowered but instead lie in a very good place at the moment.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

So you want to go by the math? UAC5 does 2x5 PPFLD within 0.5 seconds of wanting to shoot the enemy. It starts 10 pts ahead with better accuracy. By the time the RAC has inaccurately done 10 pts over a target the UAC5 has put out 20-25 pts of damage with better accuracy. The ability to shoot and twist without loss of DPS. With I individual PPFLD it's much easier to keep shots on target on the move.

Yes, because it does 5 damage at the zeroth second. So does AC10 does 10 damage at 0th second, so does AC20, and so does 20 damage at 0th second.

But lets face it, Dakka are for prolonged fire, its so you could barrel down with your enemy. If you're poking instead of staring, you might as well go lasers, ppcs, or gauss.

Again, the game is just more than 2-seconds, hell even just 0.5s, likewise a competent dakka user, be it UAC or RAC, could get prolonged exposure.

And no, the UAC5 has need 3.32s to put out 25 damage -- that is 5 damage at 0th, 5 more for double shot at presumably 0.83s. 5 more at 1.66s, + 5 more for double shot. For the last shot, which is odd-numbered, the weapon needs to recycle twice, and only shoot on the last part - dealing 5 damage at the "zeroth" second of the third volley. So 1.66 + 1.66 = 3.32s.

The RAC currently as they are does 10.92 DPS after 1s of spoolup time, so that leaves us 25.3344 damage which is essentially the same. I will give you that the UAC5 is a lot more accurate. But then we get to the higher exposure times.

True, i will give you that PPFLD damage is better. But the UAC5 also have the tendency to stare, after all at 0.83s, that's not a lot of time between shots to actually shield, or get off target and on target to armor roll. And then we get to the discombobulating part that the RAC5 would blind you.

However you have yet to disprove the math i put forward. All you ever did is just dismissed mine, without actually challenging it. It's like when you said ATM would out-brawl SRMs, when it's not even brawling in the first place.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

For much of the same reason that the IS ERLL was better than the Clan ERLL due to shorter burn time (even with inferior damage/tic) prior to the recent changes RACs, with charge up and stare down design is going to lose out vs the UAC5.

Lol there you go again. Gonna lose on stare-down, but not do stare-down. Don't make me laugh. All your argument hinged on out-poking of 0.5-2.0s window time, but then you suddenly turn to out-staring.

Math says that UAC5 does 6.02 EDPS, the RAC5 currently does 10.92 DPS with 1s spin-up time.

Given 4s of stare time, the UAC5 given 5 damage at 0th would be 5 + 24.08 = 29.08. The RAC5, with 1 spin-up time did 32.76 damage for 3s, and that's giving the UAC5 a boost.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Have already tested it tons. Have discussed testing with other people. Happy to test it with you. Could probably even help get a 4 v 4 RAC vs UAC match going.

I'll post Urbie builds and skill trees later when I'm home and we can come to an agreement on that and test it to prove the point if you want.

Oh please, i already offered my hand on testing. But you keep making the test environment invalid by having too much other factors at play, and would ultimately prove nothing.

I'm still down to try, but really it's all moot until you agree to actually make the builds as homogeneous as possible.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

What the math shows is why the RAC is bad. The DPS gain is minimal and lags 1 second behind the UAC. 1 second is a lifetime when you're talking trades.

All you ever shown that the UAC5 is better at poking, which is not the entirety of the game -- there is more than 0.5-seconds or 2-seconds of combat.

And if anything was shown to be bad, it's your math. Really you couldn't even calculate the time it takes for the UAC5 to do 25 damage right?

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

For the 1 ton, 1 slot increase (also a big deal) and the heat increase (also big) you get a small DPS advantage that delayed 1 second and only lasts a few seconds.

Again, the weapon is not a UAC, it's an RAC. Given it's mechanic, maybe you should adjust your approach on how to use it? That's like you wanting to use ERSL for 700m poking.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

Eliminate the spin-up, either increase the DPS a bit or extend the jam bar a bit.

No, spin-up needs to be reduced, not eliminated. While i would welcome the extended jam bar, it's just that we don't need the RNG once we're already risking so much by a 5s stare down.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

The UAC will always out trade the RAC and even at mid range the slight decrease in DPS is bridged by the significant gain in accuracy and useful range.

No, it will out poke it. But RAC5 will out-stare and do more damage overtime. Again there's math that just proved you wrong in the beginning. And you switching poking with staring.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 04:54 PM, said:

However it's already been tested. Repeatedly.

Don't you ******** us. You haven't shown us good reason to believe that you actually tailored a good test environment, not especially with your videos against Angry Spartan.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2017 - 06:00 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

TheMisled, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

100% jam on bar fill up is an awful idea and will just end up gimping these weapons. I don't know what people are doing with them to warrant them being called 'useless' or 'underpowered'. So far having used these things and several different mechs ranging from lights to assualts, I have had a lot of success.

Were your enemies those that stand in the open like idiots?

TheMisled, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

You can show all the stats that you want to but it should be stated (as has been done so before many time in past), stats do not equate to in-game performance of a weapon.

I agree, stats don't necessarily say what the performance would be. But coupled with our experiences predicting how it would work, that gives us an idea. And so given the numbers + our experiences, that's how we discuss.

TheMisled, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

and the fact that the damage is done over a period of time helps counter-act their huge DPS.

That's why it's "DPS" or damage per second. Time is the divisor.

TheMisled, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

Cool down is often something brought up when talking about DPS but from experience again, most of the time that I leave an RAC on cool down is when either me or the enemy has backed into cover in which case I couldn't do any damage to the opposing mech whether I have an RAC or not.

Cooldown is important because it limits the damage you can do, given the amount of time. After all it has gotten you back into cover, therefore you are not doing damage at that time.

TheMisled, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

The RAC also has a lot more dependable DPS than UACs with a little to no (not sure on exact values) chance of jamming for the first few seconds however after those first few seconds the chance of jamming increases dramatically making them a high risk vs reward weapon. The fact that they jam is also an important balancing point as they don't let you fire a continuous stream of any single weapon so why would they let you do it for the most potent DPS weapon in the game.

Long stare-times aren't necessarily good, cause that works both ways. If you can see your enemy, it's most likely that your enemy can see you too. That presents a massive window time which once an retaliate, place a good 2x 15 PPFLD on your CT, which is not really ideal.

TheMisled, on 23 July 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

All in all these weapons are a high risk vs reward weapon where the risk of high face time is paid off with monstrous damage dealt to which ever mech is unfortunate enough to be standing on the other end of your barrel(s). When you also take into account the suppressive value of these weapons, they are not underpowered but instead lie in a very good place at the moment.

I agree. But as the numbers shown, the RAC5 is too powerful, and the RAC2 is too weak.

[MischiefSC]

Tested by more than me and with a variety of people. Go to Reddit HPG for example.

Dakka is NOT just for sustained fire. It *can* sustain fire, but doesn't have to. That's why PPFLD is good and even vaguely viable for the tonnage and slower projectile speed.

There really are no good stare down weapons. That's the point.

As to testing you want to test the build as what works. You're testing real world performance. What wins is proven in the end by.... what wins. We can test the wonky builds and skill tree you have if you want - I just love my K9, however I've got all the Urbies and a bazillion SP and cbills, I'll kit it however you want. A better test would be on Jags or even Hunchies, something designed for bigger ballistics but, again, the performance gap is big enough I'll let you pick mech, map and mode.

[The6thMessenger]

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Tested by more than me and with a variety of people. Go to Reddit HPG for example.

So does of my friends named Eric Cartman, DarkMatter2525, thatguyonkoontzstreet, BallsBallsBalls. And we agreed unanimously that we can snipe a locust going 300 kph, using an RAC5 from 2000 meters away.

I did tested it too, and i actually found success despite all of your complaints. I mean really how powerful is seeing things for yourself more than people telling you what is?

See how words aren't really getting us anywhere? The problem there is Subjectivity.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

Dakka is NOT just for sustained fire. It *can* sustain fire, but doesn't have to.

But that really defeats the purpose now doesn't it? Why bring UACs if you're just going to poke. That's like brining UAC5 when you're not double-shooting, then what the hell is the god damn point if you're not double shooting? That's what you took 1 tons for.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

That's why PPFLD is good and even vaguely viable for the tonnage and slower projectile speed.

Non sequitur to the UAC5 *can* sustain. But i agree that PPFLD is good, just does not follow.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

There really are no good stare down weapons. That's the point.

Then why bother? The removal of the spin-up time doesn't change the fact that it does 1.5 damage 7.275 times each second, as opposed to 5. You're approaching the problem wrongly here. Even then, the UAC5 needs to stare to actually do good damage, so not really that of a step up above the RAC5.

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 06:13 PM, said:

As to testing you want to test the build as what works. You're testing real world performance. What wins is proven in the end by.... what wins. We can test the wonky builds and skill tree you have if you want - I just love my K9, however I've got all the Urbies and a bazillion SP and cbills, I'll kit it however you want. A better test would be on Jags or even Hunchies, something designed for bigger ballistics but, again, the performance gap is big enough I'll let you pick mech, map and mode.

How would a 1v1 be representative of a 12-v-12, which is supposed to be real-world performance. If the UAC5 is better than the RAC5, then amount of equipped weapons wouldn't matter cause the number would retain the same proportion above the RAC5.

And again, i'm willing to try. But ultimately moot.

[Khobai]

Quote

Why bring UACs if you're just going to poke.

Because UACs can do both. Poke and sustained dps. Thats primarily what makes them better than RACs. Not excluding other factors as well like better damage control, long range, lower heat, etc... the UAC is just an all around versatile weapon. one of the best.

Quote

Then why bother? The removal of the spin-up time doesn't change the fact that it does 1.5 damage 7.275 times each second, as opposed to 5. You're approaching the problem wrongly here. Even then, the UAC5 needs to stare to actually do good damage, so not really that of a step up above the RAC5.

but it also has the option of not having to stare, being able to poke instead, and still doing okayish damage.

so yeah it is a step above the RAC5. because minimizing facetime is a crucial aspect of MWO.

The one thing all the best weapons in MWO have in common is they minimize facetime. Thats not just a coincidence. Minimizing facetime is arguably the most important characteristic there is for a weapon to possess.


I feel the RAC5 should remain a facetime weapon though. But RACs need to do an absolute metric sh*tton of dps to justify their facetime. When you hit someone with a pair of RAC5s it should send them into full panic mode because they know theyll be dead before they reach the end of the jam bar. You just dont get that threatening sense of urgency with where its dps is at now, its too low, and too inconsistent with the jamming.

Edited by Khobai, 23 July 2017 - 06:57 PM.

[InfinityBall]

kapusta11, on 21 July 2017 - 12:51 AM, said:

Ugh, why would I take 2 RAC5s that do 64/80 damage over 5 seconds instead of something that does 40 damage every 4 seconds and lets me use cover?

They're fun?

*ducks*

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

Because UACs can do both. Poke and sustained dps. Thats primarily what makes them better than RACs. Not excluding other factors as well like better damage control, long range, lower heat, etc...

but it also has the option of not having to stare, being able to poke instead, and still doing okayish damage.

But that still defeats the purpose of dakka for it right? Why have the option of dakka when you're not supposed to use it? You're gonna waste 1 ton and 1 slot on the chance you could pepper someone, which won't happen majority of the match?

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

so yeah it is a step above the RAC5. because minimizing facetime is a crucial aspect of MWO.

The one thing all the best weapons in MWO have in common is they minimize facetime. Thats not just a coincidence. Minimizing facetime is arguably the most important characteristic there is for a weapon to possess.

And i agree, it's a good face time when it's low.

But still given a short amount of face-time, and skill to manage the spin time. We can manage the Gauss charge, so why not the RAC spin-up?

Another thing with the RAC is that you can stop shooting. Yes you do 5 PPFLD with the UAC5, but at short window times of 3 seconds, should you be able to manage the spin-up, you can hose down 10.92 DPS over 3 seconds, when the UAC5 would only do it for 6.02 without jam. So on longer encounters where UAC is supposed to shine, the RAC5 outshine it.

It's like SRM brawlers. Yes every other weapon out-ranges you, but it's your job to get within range. Just as the RAC's job to get good streams. The problem with people is they play the RAC as a UAC than RAC.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 06:33 PM, said:

I feel the RAC5 should remain a facetime weapon though. But RACs needs to do an absolute metric sh*tton of dps to justify its facetime. When you hit someone with an RAC5 it should send them into full panic mode because they know theyll be dead before it reaches the end of the jam bar. You just dont get that threatening sense of urgency with where its dps is at now, its too low, and too inconsistent with the jamming.

Gives that niche when you have enough skill and luck to get the circumstances right, yeah i agree that RAC should be this dakka weapon.

The math says, the RAC5 already does, the RAC2 however doesn't. I would also like to lose the long face-time in favor of shorter jam time.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2017 - 08:39 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

But that still defeats the purpose of dakka for it right?

nope. being able to do both doesnt defeat the purpose at all. if anything it expands its purpose because the weapon is adaptable to the situation. you can poke with it when you need to poke and you can facetime dps with it when you need to dps. that is why the UAC is such a supremely versatile and good weapon. it is a strength not a weakness.

Quote

But still given a short amount of face-time, and skill to manage the spin time. We can manage the Gauss charge, so why not the RAC spin-up?

because gauss doesnt require you to give five seconds of facetime after it charges up. you just charge it, fire it, then immediately move back into cover.

its not even close to the same thing as the RAC5 which forces you to leave your d*ck hanging in the wind after its spooled up.

Quote

It's like SRM brawlers. Yes every other weapon out-ranges you, but it's your job to get within range. Just as the RAC's job to get good streams. The problem with people is they play the RAC as a UAC than RAC.

Yeah but that also assumes that weapons with added risk also come with added reward. You cant be expected to go through the extra trouble of using SRMs and having to close all that distance unless the SRMs do enough damage for it to be worth your while.

The RAC5 is not worth the risk. Too much facetime and not enough reward.

Quote

The math says, the RAC5 already does,

yeah but weve been trying to tell you the math doesnt account for all the non-quantifiable factors like facetime

you can play spreadsheet warrior all you want but the reality is there are non-quantifiable factors that cant be properly assessed in your spreadsheet.

theres more to weapon balance than weapons looking good on paper.

Edited by Khobai, 23 July 2017 - 11:33 PM.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

nope. being able to do both doesnt defeat the purpose at all. if anything it expands its purpose because the weapon is adaptable to the situation. you can poke with it when you need to poke and you can facetime dps with it when you need to dps. that is why the UAC is such a supremely versatile and good weapon. it is a strength not a weakness.

I never said that it was a weakness. I said that it was defeating the point. Having that option that doesn't happen a lot on a playstyle that prefers poking would end up being completely inefficient.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

because gauss doesnt require you to give five seconds of facetime after it charges up. you just charge it, fire it, then immediately move back into cover.

You know you could do the same with RAC. You don't have to endure long stare-time, you just don't do as much damage. And you just have to stare long enough to make it a worth-while trade. Which at 10.92 DPS, is not that hard to do.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

its not even close to the same thing as the RAC5 which forces you to leave you d*ck hanging in the wind even after its spooled up.

The issue is getting the stream out, just as the gauss getting the shot out. So yeah near the same, although i get that you can hold the shell in while the stream just goes. But that doesn't mean we can't just practice the 1-second spin away, like we practice the 0.75s gauss charge away.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

and the math is wrong.

because the math doesnt account for all the non-quantifiable factors like facetime

Again. Yes. It. *******. Does.

I calculated it right. The average maximum stare-time is taken from the JamRampUpTime + average shots made above the redline, taken from a proper reference.

You're welcome to disprove it, the problem is that you have not proven a single damn thing as why my math was wrong. What was miscalculated -- stuff like that.

If you mean that it does not account possible incoming damage. Yes, it does not. But no it does not say that the "math is wrong", that would mean that something has been miscalculated, the valid phrase would have been "incomplete information". The information i gave merely highlights the damage output, which CAN be adjusted proportionally to what really happens outside.

Say actual EDPS in practice of the RAC5 is at 2.80, whereas on paper it's 4.80. Now to achieve practice DPS, we can merely increase the paper EDPS to total 6.17 -- by whatever adjustment necessary to get it up at that value, so the Practice EDPS would be at 3.6.

You just need to math.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:07 PM, said:

you can play spreadsheet warrior all you want but there are non-quantifiable weapon characteristics that you cannot put in your spreadsheet.

theres way more to weapon balance than weapons looking good on paper.

And you can deny that all you want. But seeing that you have not provided any objective material, or actually done any work that disproves the math I've shown, I cannot possibly accept your proposal.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 23 July 2017 - 11:36 PM.

[Khobai]

Quote

. I said that it was defeating the point.

it doesnt defeat the purpose at all.

Quote

You know you could do the same with RAC. You don't have to endure long stare-time

then why arnt you just using gauss instead?

Quote

Again. Yes. It. *******. Does.

nope. cant quantify something thats non-quantifiable.

Quote

And you can deny that all you want. But seeing that you have not provided any objective material, or actually done any work that disproves the math i've shown, I cannot possibly accept your proposal.

because the whole point of non-quantifiable factors is that you cant quantify them.

the only way you can balance weapons around non-quantifiables is to actually play the game and test the weapons.

spreadsheets may tell you the RAC5 is a better weapon than the UAC, but playing the game says the UAC mops the floor with it. no contest.

[The6thMessenger]

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

it doesnt defeat the purpose at all.

That's like not using the double-shot of the UAC5 at all. You just wasted 1 ton and 1 crit slot, on the same DPS the AC5 is doing by shooting every 1.66s.

Yes it's defeating the point.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

then why arnt you just using gauss instead?

5 tons heavier, and it's not as fun to use. You know i had to shave a considerable amount of armor, and forgo other backup weapons just to get a GR on an urbanmech.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

nope. cant quantify something thats non-quantifiable.

because the whole point of non-quantifiable factors is that you cant quantify them.

No, i just ******* did. It's an average maximum of 9.71s, as shown by the god damn math. If you mean the chance of failure with positive correlation to the duration of face-time, yes that is unquantifiable. There's a lot of things that can happen as you stare that would rely on so much chance.

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

If you mean that it does not account possible incoming damage. Yes, it does not. But no it does not say that the "math is wrong", that would mean that something has been miscalculated, the valid phrase would have been "incomplete information".

Sorry, my math isn't wrong, and you have shown no proof of the miscalculations. However it's scope is limited to simple calculation of the damage output.

Khobai, on 23 July 2017 - 11:37 PM, said:

the only way you can balance weapons around non-quantifiables is to actually play the game and test the weapons.

spreadsheets may tell you the RAC5 is a better weapon than the UAC, but playing the game says the UAC mops the floor with it. no contest.

I never said that the RAC5 is a better weapon, i just said that it's powerful, too powerful. That means it's the damage output. Considering the poking meta, that's true. The UAC5 would par better -- just as every other poking weapon such as the AC10 or the AC20. The math only highlights damage output, and comparing the two on the intended roles they are supposed to be doing. But that's just no more out-brawling the SRM by shooting an SRM user above it's range of retaliation.

If all you see is numbers, then you're not really thinking predicatively and fourth-dimensionally. We can reference the theoretical EDPS, and the EDPS in practice and increase it from there.

I'll repeat:

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 11:27 PM, said:

Say actual EDPS in practice of the RAC5 is at 2.80, whereas on paper it's 4.80. Now to achieve practice DPS, we can merely increase the paper EDPS to total 6.17 -- by whatever adjustment necessary to get it up at that value, so the Practice EDPS would be at 3.6.

You just need to math.

Edited by The6thMessenger, 24 July 2017 - 12:18 AM.

[Alexander of Macedon]

So, petty bickering and effectiveness in PvP aside, I've stumbled across the true calling of the RAC/5. They're O-GEN killers.

Dual RAC/5s can solo-burn a full health gen fast enough that you need a really unlucky insta-jam or most of a team shooting that one 'mech to stop it. It's genuinely pretty nutty.

[Anhydrite]

I like the RACs the way they are now. You just need to know how to use them. I had a Catapault K2 with 2 UAC5s and 4 med lasers I used to average 600-800 per PUG drop. I switched out the UACs for RAC5s and get about the same damage.

Play style had to adjust though. Its really hard to poke with RACs. So I focus on my lasers during poking. The Racs really come in handy when the Other team Pushes. Find the largest mech pushing and let him have it. I found going solo agains another mech is risky with RACs. If they know how to fight I often lost. My UAC build could brawl much better.

Bottom line is they are not used the same as UACs. UACs can brawl better. RACs are suppression and your play style must adjust.

Alexander of Macedon, on 24 July 2017 - 07:10 AM, said:

So, petty bickering and effectiveness in PvP aside, I've stumbled across the true calling of the RAC/5. They're O-GEN killers.

This guy gets it! They destroy Incursion bases and turrets also very well.

[The6thMessenger]

Anhydrite, on 24 July 2017 - 09:11 AM, said:

Bottom line is they are not used the same as UACs. UACs can brawl better. RACs are suppression and your play style must adjust.

I'll hold my breath to the UAC5 brawling biz. But i agree that RAC have their own style that they have to be used differently over the UAC to work. Once i changed my outlook on how to use the RAC, practice the spin away, i've been getting good games.

Like so.

The6thMessenger, on 23 July 2017 - 11:38 PM, said:

[InspectorG]

MischiefSC, on 23 July 2017 - 10:06 AM, said:

Because RACs are good on paper, weak in practice.

I agree.

Like LRMs vs jumpsniping. The UAC5 can get a shot off in a smaller window, whereas the RAC is gonna have to guestimate spin-up time in order to get a shot as they peek.

But, Direct fire damage farming weapons may have a place...in Puglandia. Specially if they are fun and intimidating.

[Khobai]

Quote

That's like not using the double-shot of the UAC5 at all. You just wasted 1 ton and 1 crit slot, on the same DPS the AC5 is doing by shooting every 1.66s.

Yes it's defeating the point.

Nope. youre completely wrong with your binary black and white thinking. There are a multitude of different situations can occur in a game which might affect how you fire your UAC.

UAC can poke/snapfire, where you just doubletap two shots, then immediately duck back into cover

UAC can ultramode dps where you repeatedly double tap at the fastest rate of fire for maximum dps

UAC can single shot dps, in situations where you absolutely need consistent/reliable damage and cant risk the chance of jamming. There are times when doubletapping and getting a jam can be a BAD THING.

None of those are defeating the point of the UAC. Its the fact the UAC has all those different options that makes it such a great weapon.

The RAC5 by contrast is very limited in how it can be used. It doesnt get all those different options that the UAC gets. It really only has one role: facetime dps. And it doesnt deliver enough damage in that role to be worth it.

Edited by Khobai, 24 July 2017 - 05:13 PM.